Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 12, 2012 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT

3:00 pm
on a public -- a resolution and holding public comment on that before we go into the other item. supervisor chiu: any supervisor chiu: is there any public comment on whether we should sit as a committee as a whole with a sole source said she asians? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, that shall be the case. items 29 and 30. >> item 29 is a committee as a whole hearing regarding the warriors are read the sole source negotiation, and item 30 is a resolution regarding the warriors arena project. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the office of economic and workforce development. it is our pleasure to be before
3:01 pm
you to ask you to help us begin the process of working with the golden state warriors on a potential transaction that would allow the team to construct a few from the waterfront facility. this is merely the opening tipoff. the action before you is limited in scope and authorizes only the following preliminary -- finding that the competitive bidding policy in the ad man code does not apply in this coast and allowing the city and that in detailed discussions with the warriors' organization on a potential real-estate transaction, recognizing oewd as the leader for negotiating the project, working with board staff and at the direction of the commission, urging all parties to engage in our reach to all affected and interested neighbors and stakeholders, including the san francisco giants, urging oewd and teh port to work closely with the state lands commission and urging
3:02 pm
staff to make this project a high priority. the authorizations outlined above are the full extent of the proposed action in front of you today. nothing in this resolution approves or endorses any aspect of a potential future real estate transaction with the warriors. i would like to take this opportunity briefly to give you a high level preview of our schedule and process moving forward. once authorized by you to do so via today's resolution, the city staff team will begin detailed discussions with the warriors on the transaction and also began developing a project description that delineates exactly what facilities are proposed on the pier and the seawall lot. in september, we plan to be back in front of you with a term sheet and fiscal feasibility is for your endorsement. at that point, we will begin the
3:03 pm
environmental review process and in parallel with that, work with the warriors on the designing of the arena and associated facilities. at the end of 2013, we expect it the planning commission for certification, eventually thereafter in front of this body again for approval of the real estate transaction. as you know, we will also need approvals along the way from bcdc, the state lands commission, the port commission, and other bodies. throughout this process over the next two years or so, we will certainly be available to keep the board apprised of our process. last but certainly not least, i want to discuss community outreach. this is a large project with significant locations for the neighborhood and stakeholders surrounding it. these include views, transportation and parking, access to the waterfront, neighborhood amenities, and more.
3:04 pm
we are staffing up to do this, and faults of the season as opportunities in the very near future. in closing, i want to reiterate our commitment to an efficient, transparent, and inclusive process that we are confident will result in a waterfront facility that will be the envy of the world. thank you, and i am available for any questions. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to thank you for your presentation. just have a couple questions, and i do not know if they are necessarily directed at you for the city attorney's office. in terms of moving forward with this project, and i speak as the supervisor who was very supportive of the warriors coming to san francisco, i wonder legally, what is the necessity of this kind of resolution.
3:05 pm
>> in a sense, this resolution is at the outset in forming the mayor's office and the department that they may go ahead and proceed with negotiations and that competitive bidding will not be applied to this because the board has found a purpose, and a competitive bidding requirement or policy of the city is not applicable here. supervisor campos: i appreciate that. putting aside the competitive bidding peace in terms of the other elements of this resolution, including designating oewd as the lead negotiator, some of the other points embedded in the resolution, i was just trying to understand what legal necessity of those points work. >> designating oewd -- i do not
3:06 pm
think that as a legal necessity. i think that is a policy matter. >> if i could acknowledge, the port commission has designated the mind of previous action a couple of weeks ago, and this resolution trust acknowledges that that occurred. supervisor campos: ok, it is mainly a policy statement with respect to those items? >> and i suppose it is intended to give clarity as far as who is the city's designated negotiator. supervisor campos: ok, and if we could go back to the issue of competitive bidding. again, i do not have a problem with the negotiation beginning, even if you have a sole source process, but i do have a question about the language that is here. i am trying to understand why the language used is basically
3:07 pm
that section. to me, there are good reasons from a public policy standpoint for weaving competitive bidding in this case, but that is different from saving -- for waiving competitive bidding in this case, but that is different from saying that that section does not apply. as think there are good policy reasons not to have a competitive bid in this case. >> under 2.61 of the administration cut, it provides that where the board finds the bidding procedures are impractical or impossible or where the board finds that the -- proceeding without a competitive bidding process
3:08 pm
would serve a public purpose that the board can waive that requirement upfront. supervisor campos: again, and i think i agree with that. i agree it would be appropriate to waive that requirement, but i think that is a very different one than saying that the requirement does not apply. i do have a question and concern about the language because i think it is appropriate for us to wait competitive bidding here, but that is different from saying that competitive bidding does not apply -- i think it is appropriate for us to waive competitive bidding. why not change the phrasing so that you are saying in accordance with this section of the code, we have decided that in this case it is not afraid to conduct competitive bidding, or at least begin a negotiation as
3:09 pm
opposed to simply making the statement that the section of the code does not apply. >> perhaps you may want to change it so that it says that the provisions are exempt. supervisor campos: that is another way of doing it, too. that is one question i have. again, i do not have a problem with the substance of what we are trying to do, but i do think that how we reference our administrative code matters. the second question i have is with respect to the language on page 9, and it is the section at the top of the -- of that page that says, "further resolved that should the port commission and gsw agree on mutually acceptable terms" and it
3:10 pm
continues to say that the board of supervisors will not continue to disapprove a proposed lease and other real estate transaction agreement on the basis that they do not satisfy the competitive bidding policies set forth in administrative code 2.61 -- i have a problem with that section. i do not think that we, as a board, should be in the business of saying what a future for of supervisors will or will not do. i think we should focus on the issues that are at hand, and i actually wonder whether or not this section is at all necessary. >> supervisor, this is the language that actually accomplishes the exemption or the acknowledgment that the competitive bidding policy is not applicable here, so that is what this resolved section is
3:11 pm
intended to accomplish. >> the preceding section includes language exempting the competitive bidding requirement, why is this language necessary at all? >> to accomplish what it says, which is that i of the department -- if the department proceeds and negotiates entered -- into an agreement, that the board will not later say that it should have been competitively bid. it is not saying that the agreement will be approved. it is saying that the board will not then say that the -- that it should have been competitively bid. >> again, i think if you are accepting the bid in the process, i did not see why you need to bind a future board from doing something.
3:12 pm
i do have a problem with that. supervisor avalos: just a question of -- interested in looking back local hiring. as we move forward, it is important, i believe, that as discussions start in the early stages that there is a real commitment put forward about hiring, you know, local residents, trying to maximize our local community hiring benefits. it seems like a good place to start from the outset. just wondering what the status of those discussions have been around deployment. >> i think, supervisor, that it is clear that that is a serious issue for many members of the board. what we are doing as it is to get the green light from you today is moving forward on all cylinders. we will begin discussing that as quickly as we begin discussing
3:13 pm
all of the other issues that need to be put together. it is obviously a front burner issue, and we understand the board will be expecting to see where we're going on that as soon as we have had some opportunity to talk about it. >> that would be great. it seems we have asked you to use the spirit of local hire ordinance. it does not exactly apply, but if that could be used as a template, as well as end-user jobs that will be at the site as well, which i'm sure will be ample, especially if the warriors are only one portion of the events that will be at the site. >> we hear you on that ladder and clear. supervisor chiu: -- loud and clear. supervisor chiu: i know one issue that has been raised is how we will promote a development that will enhance public access to the waterfront and protect view sheds and help create new ones. i just want to get a sense if
3:14 pm
you have any early thoughts on the commitment of this project. and i think the commitment comes from many different places. the warriors team has been clear from the very beginning that this is a huge issue, and we all recognize that there are a multitude of requirements along those lines in various planning documents that we have to meet, and we have already begun discussions, for example, with the planning department, in beginning to look at modeling how to use the work and where you put the facility on the pier. i would say it is probably among the top two or three issues we will be dealing with. them are related to the comment about local hiring, which i completely agree with, i have had so many conversations with local designers and architects that are incredibly excited about the possibility of helping to design something that is truly iconic, and i do hope that in your discussions with the
3:15 pm
warriors that you are able to impress upon them how, i think, great it would be to be able to harness that creativity around local talent. >> yes, understood. supervisor mar: i am glad in conversations with residents from other neighborhoods around the area that oewd and the mayor's office had begun some communication, but i hope the stakeholders are involved in any meaningful way in the process. i believe -- i agree it is the perfect spot for the stadium, but i agree that the strongest possible local hiring policies and laborers and labor are centrally involved as well. the mayor's office has communicated to me that local hire is a key priority. i look forward to working with you as well as that. supervisor kim: just referring
3:16 pm
to supervisor mar's point about outreach, when we met with the owner of the words, the first thing we could make clear was getting a commitment from them on initiating communities as soon as possible. both with neighborhoods that will be greatly impacted by the traffic and also the design of the arena, but also a larger community conversation around local hire, jobs, and any other benefits that the warriors would be bringing along with this major development. the warriors have committed that we will be initiating these community meetings in the next couple of weeks, so we will be holding them in district 6, still confirming the states, but we will be doing a series of meetings. i think it is a key part, and i think it is important to go to the community before many of these processes have begun and to make clear when people ask questions that we do not know
3:17 pm
the answer yet, and this project, as amazing as it could potentially be, will potentially have an impact on the community, so i want to confirm that i really want to thank the warriors because of their openness and eager commitment to all of these meetings. it also have made it clear that local hire will be a key piece of the project moving forward, that i think we have enough support on the board of supervisors that we will want to see a vigorous commitment to local fire with this project. it, of course, does make sense to ensure the folks that are currently working at the existing site -- of course, we do not want people to lose their jobs, so with all new jobs created by this, we want to see very rigorous out -- and commitment to hiring locally. very appreciative of the fact that they are also supportive of the small businesses that are in the area here from the get go,
3:18 pm
having that kind of commitment i think says a lot. just a couple of other things -- i know that our office has been semi-flooded with a lot of e- mails and concerns about this. i just want to assure the district that the commitment is to have an open dialogue with the warriors, and i really look forward to that. in light of the concerns around the, wanted to make an amendment that the board of supervisors -- support -- urges support. i know it may seem like a small change, but i think it is a meaningful 14 waterflood residents. curious if supervisor campos has any proposed amendments around this.
3:19 pm
i think there is a level of flexibility to run this issue, so i am happy to detain any motions on the issues. supervisor chiu: do you want to restate your amendment? supervisor kim: know, my proposed amendment is on page eight, line 13. for the result that the board of supervisors to affected and interested neighbors, community members and sticklers could share the proposed project and design with maximum public input. again, it is a minor change, but i think that kind of small change is very meaningful. >> -- supervisor chiu: i would
3:20 pm
suggest we take up all amendments after we close the public hearing. supervisor campos: i do have one change at like to propose along the lines i indicated. i still believe that the paragraph at the top of page 9 is not necessary, but i will leave that in with the caveat that i would like to change the language of the last paragraph on page 8 of the resolution and just checked with the city attorney's office to make sure that the change is understood, but what i propose is that in that first resolved, that following the statement -- that we would change it to say as follows -- that the possible transaction with gsw, including
3:21 pm
for all purposes of this resolution, and the affiliated development, entity, or , orgsw may establish for the project as approved by the city for development of the site, and accordingly to the -- wait, let me rephrase that. we would change it to say that this possible transaction with gsw -- and we continue the parentheses that describe the transaction -- and then you have language that it is extended from competitive policy set forth in administrative code 2.6-1, and then the rest would remain the same period it essentially makes a minor change so that it makes it clear not that the section does not apply, but that this section is exempted -- the project is exempted from being covered by that section. so that as my motion. supervisor chiu: that sounds
3:22 pm
innocuous to me. do you have any issues with that? >> it sounds like it achieves the same purposes for us. i would defer to the city attorney that there is no issue there, but it does not sound like it changes what we need to see out of the resolution. supervisor kim: i will second that motion. i apologize -- up to two lines i amended. the same word. that is my motion, changing the two words on page 1 and page 8. supervisor chiu: demotions are seconded. any further questions? -- the motion is seconded. with that, what we got a further public comment -- why don't we go to public comment? this is about what the city ought to enter into negotiations as proposed in the resolution. then the members of the board of
3:23 pm
supervisors, director of san francisco open government. i have heard a lot of that service to the idea that citizens should be allowed input. the reason i question that is the fact that many of the city departments, especially under the current mayor, become very non-responsive when it comes to public information requests. for the public to fully participate and meaningfully participate in any sort of process, they have to be allowed access to the documents which are being discussed at the particular meeting. unfortunately, what we are finding very often in cases like this, with the public is allowed to comment, is that they show up and there are no copies of the documents available, nothing was made available on the web site, said they are kind of talking into a black hole and really cannot say exactly what it is the objective. i know everybody is excited. we lost the 49ers, and now we're
3:24 pm
going to get another sports team. the bottom line is that often in these things, the rush to get it done precludes the public from meaningful participation. i mean, the first amendment that he took the pledge allegiance to at the beginning of this meeting means anything to you, it ought to be something that a member of the public who wishes to, and be given access to the records and documents and things which are public property in order to do so effectively. i think what happens is that city agencies get so determined that this is going to happen and it is going to be good that they decide it is within their authority to withhold public records and public documents so that members of the public when they get to a meeting are sort of caught off at the past. so unless you are willing to say that you are going to make sure that the different city agencies fully comply with open government laws, it is all lip
3:25 pm
service. supervisor chiu: thank you. that speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jim lazarus, chamber of commerce. we strongly urge you to approve this resolution. this is probably the most exciting product -- one of the most exciting projects that will come before this board of supervisors. back to the mid-1970's when the board of supervisors approved the development of mosconi center and yerba buena gardens, the mid-1990's when we approved the giants ballpark, and now, a potential arena, which has been in our minds but -- for decades. this is a key facility to the further development of recreation and visitor industry
3:26 pm
in san francisco, and we urge you to unanimously approved the resolution and work together in a cooperative way with the warriors and city, family, civic leaders, and community along the waterfront in developing what could be an iconic, world-class facility for the bay area. thank you very much. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker please. >> ♪ warriors golden state arena the city with the midas touch a golden touch the gold basketball ringer get your half-court shot give it all you got give it all you got the gold ring your basketball give it your best shot
3:27 pm
we love the golden state warriors gold let the project unfold we love the gold ♪ supervisor chiu: slam dunk singing, walter. thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. this is a copy of my letter today to the board. i provided this board, the mayor, the warriors and port commission a copy of my proposal to include a high school classroom inside the arena. i would like to read this short note that i wrote for the benefit of the public. i propose this on my website. i have been sending proposals to city leaders were about 25 years, starting with the giants
3:28 pm
in 1985. i also teach san francisco public high-school the last 10 years. please review my education and career development proposal. numerous public and private sector officials. i am requesting the original design and construction of a potential basketball are made up on san francisco property be included with this collaboration a career path way accessible to our san francisco high school and college students, youth, and community. i wholeheartedly support the construction of a multi-purpose fastball and it facility with the of national simulation that
3:29 pm
supports the help of our entire community, a model for visionary facilities, a career-academy classroom capable of providing year-round real-world business experience, incentive, and innovation for our culture of diverse communities. i support this basketball arena, in just a reminder i appreciate all the -- the fact that all the agencies involved in this process -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you very much. >> i am a pile driver and bridge builder. i heard you mention about the local hire. i want to know why i am still at home. i am a pile driver and a bridge builder, starting another job.